The 7125 (7 x 125 watts) has a 1.6 kVA transformer divided into seven channels, which is at least as robust of a power supply as the XPA-5's 1.2 kVA transformer divided into 5 channels. I'd be surprised if the XPA-5 delivered any more real-world power than the 7125.

It might not make a difference to you, but if it does, Outlaw is manufactured by ATI here in the USA (although IIRC some of the component parts come from overseas).

Why would XLS 1000 be best at being a sub amp? It's a stereo pro amp. A better choice for a subwoofer amp would probably be one with a bass oriented EQ, right? I mean the XLS 1000 was not specifically designed as a subwoofer amp. I am sure it works just fine in that capacity, but again why would be is best at that which it was not designed specifically for?

The 7125 (7 x 125 watts) has a 1.6 kVA transformer divided into seven channels, which is at least as robust of a power supply as the XPA-5's 1.2 kVA transformer divided into 5 channels. I'd be surprised if the XPA-5 delivered any more real-world power than the 7125.

It might not make a difference to you, but if it does, Outlaw is manufactured by ATI here in the USA (although IIRC some of the component parts come from overseas).

I have long been interested in the 7125. But maybe it's better to just buy a rack of class D pro amps. They are light, if a bit bulky.

At present I use an XLS 1000 Crown amp, the Emotiva XPA-3 and my receivers amps for my 7 channels of needed amplification. They all work well (with the small annoyance of hiss from the XLS 1000, but that's only when you are standing right next to the rear surround speakers connected to it.)

I have long been interested in the 7125. But maybe it's better to just buy a rack of class D pro amps. They are light, if a bit bulky.

At present I use an XLS 1000 Crown amp, the Emotiva XPA-3 and my receivers amps for my 7 channels of needed amplification. They all work well (with the small annoyance of hiss from the XLS 1000, but that's only when you are standing right next to the rear surround speakers connected to it.)

I've had my eye on that 7500 for a while, but I just can't justify it right now. I have a 5.1 set up with a big sub powered solely by a Denon 4311 and the sub's amp and everything crossed over at 90 Hz. I decided several nights ago to watch Transformers-Dark Side of the Moon at 0.0 and leave it there for the whole movie. Wow, it was just too much and I kept waiting for the cops to knock on my door--it was crazy how loud it got. The Denon didn't even break a sweat and I don't see how more power would give me any more performance that I could actually use.

The 7125 (7 x 125 watts) has a 1.6 kVA transformer divided into seven channels, which is at least as robust of a power supply as the XPA-5's 1.2 kVA transformer divided into 5 channels. I'd be surprised if the XPA-5 delivered any more real-world power than the 7125.

It might not make a difference to you, but if it does, Outlaw is manufactured by ATI here in the USA (although IIRC some of the component parts come from overseas).

Thank you for breaking down the 7125 for me. Being that I am fairly new to this, could you also break down the XPA-5 so that I can make an apples to apples comparison?

Thank you for breaking down the 7125 for me. Being that I am fairly new to this, could you also break down the XPA-5 so that I can make an apples to apples comparison?

I haven't seen a bench test on the XPA-5, but I'd sure like to. My guess is from its power supply it would bench very close to the 7125 in terms of real-world power to each channel driven. What kind of speakers do you need to drive? I would think either the XPA-5 or the 7125 would drive most reasonably efficient speakers as loud as you could stand to listen to them in all but the biggest rooms.

Emo has published their own plots from their analyzer. However, it's been suggested the plots are from a sweep...that the amp's would not fare as well if they were measured with the power being put out for minutes at a time.

The combined power from the XPA-3, 600 watts, seems to exceed the rating of the transformer used in it (assuming typical class AB efficiency.) Of course with real material, the amps don't have to put out 200 watts into all channels at the same time most likely, or if they do, it's for a very short interval.

@ M Huffman... Because it can be bridged mono to a large amount of whats, and the Crown amps are known to have alot of "balls". I actually had a Com tech 210 bridged running my sub and these go on ebay for about $100 and it totally killed the Adcom i used and now the Marantz. It went out on me so I'm considering going with another Crown Com tech even though they are called "P.A amps" Have you had any experience with the Com tech line of Crown? they are older amps and are less expensive. Another reason I made that statement is because the post above stated that they weren't as Hi Fi as the other amps being compared, so i fugure Bass wouldn't show that fault as much.

A lot of amps can be bridged. I read of a lot of people buying Behringer Europower amps for subs, probably because they are about the cheapest respected pro amp on the market (there's cheaper, but not respected

Yes, when My Crown Com tech went out, I should have bought another one! I mean that thing kicked some major butt on my sub and really hit the low notes well. The marantz ma700 that I'm using now doesn't even compare! Thinking about using the marantz as a center and adding a quality two channel amp for left and right. I plan on using my HK 3600's outputs for the 4 surrounds.

Smaller capacitors mean less energy for long-term energy storage. No idea if that will matter in the real world. The most likely sonic impact is in the bass (at least IME; that is where I have heard and measured differences in the past when I have added capacitors).

The transformer capacity only matters if you run at full-scale output for extended time. Average power levels are most often only a few watts. The transformer won't die if you exceed it's capacity briefly, you won't even notice. It will limit current if you exceed its design margin (I do not know what their margin is).

Unless the output transistors are the same type and similarly biased the comparison of quantity is meaningless. I do not know either way.

There are plenty reviews of the Emotivas showing real-world (or least decent bench test) performance meets or exceeds their specifications.

Bottom line for me and in IMO only: Little difference in real-world performance. The Outlaw is a better amp from the standpoint of components, and at a significantly higher price point. Emotiva is a value leader and the lower cost has to come from somewhere.

My gut feel is Outlaw is a bit more reliable but I have not done sufficient research to say for sure, and of course on the audio boards mostly what you get are the folk with problems.

If you want and can afford the higher component quality, or at least greater power capacity and headroom, get the Outlaw. If your budget is constrained or your research shows the Emotiva is good enough, you'll be fine with that as well.

Obviously there are many fans of both brands and you would not go wrong with either. I wish I had an Outlaw to compare; my current stable of amps is Emotiva as I retired my previous tube and SS amps and can no longer afford the ARC/Krell/ML-class of components I had in the primordial past.

"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley

I haven't seen a bench test on the XPA-5, but I'd sure like to. My guess is from its power supply it would bench very close to the 7125 in terms of real-world power to each channel driven. What kind of speakers do you need to drive? I would think either the XPA-5 or the 7125 would drive most reasonably efficient speakers as loud as you could stand to listen to them in all but the biggest rooms.

At present I use an XLS 1000 Crown amp, the Emotiva XPA-3 and my receivers amps for my 7 channels of needed amplification. They all work well (with the small annoyance of hiss from the XLS 1000, but that's only when you are standing right next to the rear surround speakers connected to it.)

I'm using my xls1000 bridged for sub use. I did try it out on my mains first just to listen at full range, I heard no hiss with it hooked up to a onkyo 3007, maybe your denon is hissing?

Try lowing the amps input level and up the denon output level above the denon noise floor for better s/n ratio. Thats works for noisy preamps. I wouldn't rule out a noisy amp to. But its worth a try.

Sounds like maybe the XLS1500 is the one to go for, even though it's way more power than people need for mains.

It has a much higher S/N ratio than the 1000, because it has a better DSP.

All the XLS use the same DSP
1000 s/n 97db and the others are rated 103db
But even with s/n of 97db the amp should be hiss free
I know my 1000 is noise free.
Maybe Michael's speakers are very high efficiency ?
He may need to add a 10-20 ohm 10 watt resistor inline to just the tweeters
Than reEQ the high end.
I have used this trick with great results, its very cost effective.

All the XLS use the same DSP
1000 s/n 97db and the others are rated 103db

Here's what Kevin Heber (then Crown rep) wrote on their forum:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin Heber

The 1500 has a better (outboard) codec than the 1000, so the noise performance is better. ***
In the case of the XLS1000, the DAC resides within the DSP, while in the case of the XLS1500 – 2500, the DAC is part of a separate Cirrus codec. ***